AstroProdigy Posted June 30, 2007 Report Posted June 30, 2007 I already have it all thought out how it would go down, but I'd like to hear your opinions.
Aileron Posted June 30, 2007 Report Posted June 30, 2007 If we were to par!@#$%^&*ion I'd say add Iran to the mix too. But, the middle east is not Europe. In Europe nations have borders where their influence is absolute on one side of the line and nil on the other. In the middle east, influence isn't that well bound by borders due to larger land area per capita.
AstroProdigy Posted July 1, 2007 Author Report Posted July 1, 2007 I never said par!@#$%^&*ion the whole Middle East. All I said was par!@#$%^&*ion Iraq and Afghanistan. Par!@#$%^&*ioning Iran would make a mess since it would force us to either par!@#$%^&*ion the whole Middle East or look like hypocrits. Not only that, but Shiites see a par!@#$%^&*ioning of Iran as unacceptable since Iran is the strongest supporter for Shia minorities. Not only that, but it would overly fragment the Middle East and ruin the par!@#$%^&*ioning of Afghanistan. The reason par!@#$%^&*ioning Afghanistan would be remarkably easy is that Turkmens, Uzbeks, Tajiks all have their ethnic kin in states surrounding Afghanistan that control their own people. The majority of Pashtuns are in Pakistan anyway, so giving the rest of the Pashtun land would be no big deal. The Shia Persians and Shia Hazara could fit much better in Iran than they would as a Shiite minority in Afghanistan. All that would be left is a multiethnic Kabul that Karzai already controls and can be a city state type of structure. This wouldn't even fragment any surrounding countries it would strengthen all of them. This would of course prompt calls for the much more violent Iraq to also be par!@#$%^&*ioned. The Shiite Arab state would be par!@#$%^&*ioned off easily and we would remain with a smaller number of troops. The Sunni Arab state would be a state we focus only on stability with and focus our efforts there. The Kurdish state would gladly par!@#$%^&*ion itself and is already de-facto independent on most issues. We would remain with a smaller contingent of troops there too and be greeted as liberators as the Kurds have always greeted us. If Turkey has a problem with this then tough luck. They are about the most useless ally we could have today. With any country with a Turkic minority Turkey would only pose a threat to stability and seeing as if we decided to invade Iran Turkey would only play a destructive role who needs them anyway? We can cut off the military funding we already give them and if they decide to try to invade Iraqi Kurdistan then we would annihilate their more outdated forces, par!@#$%^&*ion off Turkish Kurdistan and give some land back to the Armenians that they've been owed for decades now. The West would see us as finally backing the freedom and justice rhetoric and on top of that we would have an oil rich Kurdish ally that would replace Turkey as a true beacon of democracy in the Middle East. Look how much Albanians love us because of what we did in Kosovo. Now replicate that with a much larger and more geographically significant ally with oil resources and you have Kurdistan.
Recommended Posts